Sri M.R.Shiji, Thrissur V. DCIT, Trichur

ITA 186/COCH/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61458 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S R SENAPATI
• Assessee Lawyers: A S NARAYANAMURTHY
• Keywords: Unexplained investment

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO 186, 187, 188, 189 & 190/COCH/2010 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI B.R. BASKARA N(AM) I.T.A NO. 186, 187, 188, 189 & 190/COCH/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) SHRI M.R. SHIJI VS THE DY.CIT, CENT.CIR. MRIDUAL TIMBERS, PARALAM P.O THRISSUR THRISSUR 680 575 PAN : AKLPS8235Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.S. NARAYANAMURTHY RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.R. SENAPATI DATE OF HEARING : 02-04-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27-04-2012 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) ALL THE FIVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARISE OUT OF THE INDEPENDENT ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-I, KOCHI FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEARS 2003-04, 2004- 05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08. SINCE ALL THE APPEALS ARISE OUT OF THE SEARCH CONDUCTED U/S 132A OF THE ACT, WE HEARD THEM TOGETH ER AND ARE DISPOSING OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. IN APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN ITA NO.1 86/COCH/2010 FIRST THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS ADDITION OF RS.2,10,000. 2 ITA NO 186, 187, 188, 189 & 190/COCH/2010 3. WE HEARD SHRI A.S. NARAYANAMURTHY, THE LD.REPRES ENTTIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI S.R. SENAPATI, THE LD.DR. 4. ACCORDING TO SHRI NARAYANAMURTHY, THE LD.REPRESE NTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,10,000 WAS RECEIVED AS ADVANCE DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE ASSESSED AS UNDISCLOSED CASH RECEIPT. WE HEARD, SHRI S.R. SENAPATI, THE LD.DR ALSO. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT WHAT WAS RECEIVED IS AN ADVANCE, THE FACT REMAINS IS THA T THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY MATERIAL BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE PERSON FROM WHOM HE RECEIVED THE ADVAN CE. THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. THE CREDITWORTHIN ESS OF THE PERSON, WHO SAID TO HAVE GIVEN THE ADVANCE WAS ALSO NOT ESTABLISHED. I T IS WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVING THE CASH CREDIT. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT WHAT WAS RE CEIVED IS AN ADVANCE, BUT, UNLESS AND UNTIL THE ASSESSEE PROVES THAT WHAT IS R ECEIVED IS AN ADVANCE, IT HAS TO BE ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITY. ACC ORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 5. NOW COMING TO THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 4-05 IN ITA NO.187/COCH/2010, THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS WIT H REGARD TO INTEREST PAID ON HOUSING LOAN. 6. SHRI A.S. NARAYANAMURTHY, THE LD.RPERESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED LOSS OF RS.1,22 ,713 UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALL OWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT COMPLET ED AND THE PROPERTY WAS NOT 3 ITA NO 186, 187, 188, 189 & 190/COCH/2010 OCCUPIED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCO RDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED GROUN D FLOOR AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR INTEREST PAID ON HOUSING LOAN FOR SEL F OCCUPIED HOUSE. THEREFORE, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTIN G THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S.R. SENAPATI, THE LD.DR S UBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE WAS COMPLETED. UNLESS AND UNTIL THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE IS COMPLETED IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO OCCUPY THE SAME. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE LOSS, IF ANY, ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON THE HOUSING LOAN CAN BE ALLOWED ONLY AFTER COMPL ETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THOUGH THE ASSES SEE CLAIMS THAT GROUND FLOOR OF THE BUILDING WAS COMPLETED AND IT WAS SELF-OCCUPIED, NO MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT GROUND FLOOR OF THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED AND IT WAS OCCUPIED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MA TERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE WAS COMPLETED AND IT WAS OCCUPIED BY THE ASSESSEE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE LOSS ON AC COUNT OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. THERE FORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 9. NOW COMING TO NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL PERTAINING T O ESTIMATION OF PROFIT AT 5%, SHRI A.S NARAYANAMURTHY, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) FOUND THAT TH ERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO IGNORE THE BOOK RESULT. HOWEVER, HE UPHELD THE SUP PRESSION OF SALES. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, WHEN THE BOOK RESULTS WER E NOT REJECTED, THERE IS NO 4 ITA NO 186, 187, 188, 189 & 190/COCH/2010 QUESTION OF ADDITION ON SUPPRESSED SALES. THEREFOR E, THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT AT 5% IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 10. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S.R. SENAPATI, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND SUPPRESSED SALES FOR 19 DAYS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOK RESULT AND ESTIMATED THE PROFIT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SAYING THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN IGNORING THE WHOLE BO OK RESULTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WHEN THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) HAS UPHELD THE SUPPRESSED TURNOVER AT 7.05% AND DETERMINED THE PROFIT @5%, HE CANNOT SAY THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION TO IGNORE THE WHOLE BOOK RESULT. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, UNLESS AND UNTIL THE BOOK RESULTS WERE REJECT ED, THE PROFIT CANNOT BE ESTIMATED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RI GHTLY REJECTED THE BOOK RESULT AND ESTIMATED THE TURNOVER ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZ ED MATERIAL. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND SUPPRESSION OF SALES DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION. ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, THE AS SESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE PROFIT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) FOUND THA T ESTIMATION OF PROFIT FOR THE WHOLE YEAR IS ON THE BASIS OF SUPPRESSION OF SALES FOUND FOR 19 DAYS WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE FACT REMAINS IS THAT FOR THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION THERE WAS SUPPRESSED SALES AND BOOK RESULT DID NOT REFLECT THE CORRECT PROFIT. THEREFORE, THE PROFIT HAS TO BE ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WHEN THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) UPHELD THE SUPPRES SED TURNOVER AT 7.05% AND DETERMINED THE PROFIT THEREON AT 5% IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW THE CIT(A) COULD SAY THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN REJECTING THE BO OK RESULTS. THE QUESTION OF 5 ITA NO 186, 187, 188, 189 & 190/COCH/2010 ESTIMATION OF PROFIT WOULD COME INTO PICTURE AFTER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THERE IS NO Q UESTION OF ANY ESTIMATION OF TURNOVER AND PROFIT THEREON. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED IN THE LIG HT OF THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE O RDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE OF SURPLUS TURNOVER AND ESTIMATION OF PROFIT IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RECONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 12. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS ESTI MATION OF TURNOVER AT RS.3 LAKHS PER DAY. SINCE THIS ISSUE IS CONNECTED WITH T HE EARLIER ISSUE, VIZ. ESTIMATION OF TURNOVER AND PROFIT, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPI NION THAT THIS ISSUE ALSO NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED, SINCE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X(A) HAS FOUND FAULT WITH THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT EVEN THOUGH SUPPRE SSION OF SALES AND ESTIMATION OF PROFIT WAS UPHELD. THEREFORE, THE OR DERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE SAME IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RECONSIDER THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 13. NOW COMING TO APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN ITA NO.188/COCH/2010, THE FIRST ISSUE PERTAINS TO ESTIM ATION OF TURNOVER AND PROFIT THEREON. WE HAVE, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IN IT A NO.187/COCH/2010, HELD THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) WAS NOT RIGH T IN FINDING THAT THE REJECTION OF BOOK RESULTS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED WHEN HE FOUND THAT THERE WERE 6 ITA NO 186, 187, 188, 189 & 190/COCH/2010 SUPPRESSION OF SALES FOR 19 DAYS AND AGREED WITH TH E CONSEQUENTIAL ESTIMATION OF TURNOVER AND PROFIT THEREON AND THE ISSUE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION. CONSISTENT WITH THE S AME AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE ALSO IDENTICAL WE RESTORE THIS IS SUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RECONSIDER THE ISSUE AS PER THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY US FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, ELSEWHERE IN THIS ORDER . 14. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS ESTIMATION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ONLY CONTENTION OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSE E IS THAT THE DVO ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ON THE BASIS OF CPWD RATE. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE COST HAS TO BE ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF STATE PWD RATE. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE DE CISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN G RAJAN VS ITO IN ITA NO.72 & 73/COCH/2005 DATED 31-03 -2005. 15. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S.R. SENAPATI, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CPWD RATE IS MORE SPECIFIC AND THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE F OLLOWED FOR ESTIMATING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, STATE PWD RATES ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR ESTIMATION OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS HOTEL ALUKKAS IN ITA NO .1588 OF 2009 DATED 09- 09-2009 UPHELD THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHEREIN TH E STATE PWD RATES ARE PREFERRED OVER THE CPWD RATE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL WAS UPHELD BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ADOPTING TH E STATE PWD RATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTIMATION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THE REFORE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN SAYING THAT THE CPWD RATE HAS TO BE PREFERRED 7 ITA NO 186, 187, 188, 189 & 190/COCH/2010 OVER THE STATE PWD RATE. ADMITTEDLY, THE DVO HAS A DOPTED CPWD RATE. THEREFORE, THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IF NECESSARY, AFTER REFERRING TO THE DVO FOR ESTIMATIO N OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION ON THE BASIS OF THE STATE PWD RATE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDE RS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE ISSUE AND THE REAFTER DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORT UNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT IF THE DVO ESTIMATES THE COST OF CO NSTRUCTION BELOW THE COST DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE COST DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ADOPTED. 17. NOW COMING TO APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN ITA NO.189/COCH/2010, THE FIRST ISSUE PERTAINS TO ESTIM ATION OF TURNOVER AND PROFIT ON SUPPRESSED SALES. THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ONE WE HAVE DECIDED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06. WE HAVE, FOR T HOSE YEARS HELD THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) WAS NOT RIGHT IN FINDI NG THAT THE REJECTION OF BOOK RESULTS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED WHEN HE FOUND THAT THERE WERE SUPPRESSION OF SALES FOR 19 DAYS AND AGREED WITH THE CONSEQUENTIAL ESTIMATIO N OF TURNOVER AND PROFIT THEREON AND THE ISSUE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION. CONSISTENT WITH THE SAME AS THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RECONSIDER THE ISSUE AS PER THE DIRECTION ISS UED BY US FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 & 2005-06, ELSEWHERE IN THIS ORDER. 18. NOW COMING TO APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IN ITA NO.190/COCH/2010, THE FIRST IS WITH REGARD TO ESTIM ATION OF TURNOVER AND PROFIT ON SUPPRESSED SALES. THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ONE WE HAVE DECIDED FOR 8 ITA NO 186, 187, 188, 189 & 190/COCH/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06 AND 2006-07. WE HAV E, FOR THOSE YEARS HELD THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) WAS NOT RIGH T IN FINDING THAT THE REJECTION OF BOOK RESULTS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED WHEN HE FOUND THAT THERE WERE SUPPRESSION OF SALES FOR 19 DAYS AND AGREED WITH TH E CONSEQUENTIAL ESTIMATION OF TURNOVER AND PROFIT THEREON AND THE ISSUE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION. CONSISTENT WITH THE S AME AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE T O THE FILE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RECONSIDER THE ISSUE AS PER THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY US FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06 AND 2006-07, ELSEWHE RE IN THIS ORDER. 19. THE SECOND GROUND PERTAINS TO ESTIMATION OF COS T OF CONSTRUCTION. THIS GROUND IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND RAISED IN APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. WE HAVE ALREADY FOUND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 THAT THE ADOPTION OF STATE PWD RATE HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN HOT EL ALUKKAS (SUPRA). THE ISSUE HAS ACCORDINGLY BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HOTEL ALUKKAS (SUPRA) AND DIRECTIONS ISSUED T HEREIN. THEREFORE, CONSISTENT WITH THE DECISION ALREADY TAKEN BY US, THE ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, WHILE RECONSIDERING THE ISSUE, SHALL FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 20. THE THIRD GROUND PERTAINS TO ADDITION ON ACCOUN T OF LOW WITHDRAWAL FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WHEREAS THE FOURTH GROUND PERTAI NS TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY A ND BUILDING WORK. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE ISSUES SEPARATELY, IN F ACT, THE ISSUE IS ONE AND THE SAME PERTAINING TO ADDITION OF A SUM OF RS.2,66,325 MADE ON TELESCOPING OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. SINCE WE HAVE REMITTED ALMOST ALL THE ISSUES IN APPEALS FOR 9 ITA NO 186, 187, 188, 189 & 190/COCH/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007-08 WHICH HAVE DIRECT BEARING ON THESE PARTICULAR GROUNDS, THE GROUNDS ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE MAY DECIDE THEM AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNI TY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 21. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-0 4 IS DISMISSED; APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IS PARTLY ALLOWED; AND APPEA LS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 27 TH APRIL, 2012 PK/- COPY TO: 1. SHRI M.R. SHIJI, MRIDUAL TIMBERS, PARALAM, P.O., TH RISSUR 680 575 2. THE DY.CIT, CENT.CIR., S.T. NAGAR, THRISSUR 3. C.I.T.(A)-I, KOCHI 4. C.I.T., CONCERNED 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH